|
oxbrain posted:Stop listening to anything on the radio that isn't music. But sometimes it's fun listening to Jayne Carroll insist that Planned Parenthood is a satanic cult seeking to get rich from selling dead baby parts. 
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Right, but you can mostly solve this for bikes with protected bike lanes, protected intersections, bike trails, etc. and some cities have done this effectively. I don't see an equivalent solution for motorcycles being feasible. Although are we only talking about 'real' motorcycles, or also scooters? For longer distance commuting I had actual motorcycles in mind, but scooters make a lot of sense if you're not hitting the freeways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:I came to post this, but it just seems like small potatoes by comparison. Rantz seems to be a conservative talk-radio jackass, so I don't put stock in him complaining about the state resorting to lovely regressive poo poo like tolls to get money when I'm sure he's been gung ho about stopping more sane systems for funding poo poo (i.e., income tax). e: And what's the solution for more general use lanes on 405? Basically, if you get rid of the tolled express lanes, going back to how it was, you could get rid of the HOV lane, but the HOV lane on 405 is pretty much just as hosed as the other lanes, so it'll just fill up too. loving Sim City on the SNES at least had it right that you can't just always solve traffic problems in a growing region with more lanes, though I don't know what will solve 405. e2: Would destroying Bellevue and salting the earth help? foobardog fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Rantz seems to be a conservative talk-radio jackass, so I don't put stock in him complaining about the state resorting to lovely regressive poo poo like tolls to get money when I'm sure he's been gung ho about stopping more sane systems for funding poo poo (i.e., income tax). Add congestion charge system to Bellevue and Seattle. Bam. Regional traffic problems fixed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:For longer distance commuting I had actual motorcycles in mind, but scooters make a lot of sense if you're not hitting the freeways. Long distance commuting by motorcycle sucks. Especially on the freeway. In the rain. Not a viable solution for the sane imo. Did it for a few years. Too many close calls, near misses, and idiots out there. Any improvements made for bikes have some residual for motorcycles just due to awareness of two wheeled vehicles. Bike rant.... Separate roads and trails are the best answer. Slapping them on top of the normal thorough fares is asinine and just pisses everyone off. Use alleys or side streets. Bikes can deal with the "uniqueness" of odd street widths that cars and trucks just can't. I've gotten into shouting matches in public at the city bike planners in Tacoma for adding bike lanes down the main traffic streets and loving up the car lanes/creating death traps for cyclists when there are double wide side streets everywhere that would just need a bit of paint and a few well placed yield signs to become effective bike trails. I know it's different in the middle of the city, but man city planners are in such a bunker mentality on this crap. Don't get me started on the bs that is the Seattle Westlake cycle track project. (please do)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Add congestion charge system to Bellevue and Seattle. So something like the 405 lanes, but everywhere and more widespread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Add congestion charge system to Bellevue and Seattle. It's actually an elegant solution, the more I think about it. As long as downtown space is highly desirable and you're not charging extra to use it, it's going to be over-used, that's just like econ 101. A congestion fee would fix that imbalance, and as a side effect would strongly incentivize suburbs to play nice when it came to supporting regional transit plans, because their residents would have real skin in the game then. Like what do you always hear from suburbs when discussing commuter rail? "Ugh, I don't want MY TAXES to pay for that, I just want to drive!!" But if there was a congestion fee for them to get to where they work in their car, they might change their tune. Cicero fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
I'm guessing most of the downtown businesses would be against it, because they'll presumably go out of business if people refuse to drive to downtown to patronize them something something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:I'm guessing most of the downtown businesses would be against it, because they'll presumably go out of business if people refuse to drive to downtown to patronize them something something. Although this sounds feasible, it is not a thing that actually happens; pedestrians and bicyclists walking by a store contribute way, way way more to the wealth of the business than car traffic could ever hope to. So if you prioritize pedestrians in an area, businesses will do better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Although this sounds feasible, it is not a thing that actually happens; pedestrians and bicyclists walking by a store contribute way, way way more to the wealth of the business than car traffic could ever hope to. So if you prioritize pedestrians in an area, businesses will do better. Pedestrians also commonly come out of cars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
There should be heavy tax incentives for businesses to encourage/allow/enable telecommuting whenever possible. I do it two days a week, and could easily do it every day. I would just need to stop into the office every couple of weeks to pick up any packages that come my way. It would be like getting a raise for everyone- no gas, less morning coffee/breakfast/lunch out, no commute time. Obviously everyone can't do it 24/7, but a hell of a lot more people could do it than now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
WayAbvPar posted:There should be heavy tax incentives for businesses to encourage/allow/enable telecommuting whenever possible. I do it two days a week, and could easily do it every day. I would just need to stop into the office every couple of weeks to pick up any packages that come my way. It would be like getting a raise for everyone- no gas, less morning coffee/breakfast/lunch out, no commute time. Obviously everyone can't do it 24/7, but a hell of a lot more people could do it than now. I used to VNC into my work machines from home, and always enjoyed the thought that coworkers were watching my computers apparently run themselves, like a ghost was using them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
WayAbvPar posted:There should be heavy tax incentives for businesses to encourage/allow/enable telecommuting whenever possible. I do it two days a week, and could easily do it every day. I would just need to stop into the office every couple of weeks to pick up any packages that come my way. It would be like getting a raise for everyone- no gas, less morning coffee/breakfast/lunch out, no commute time. Obviously everyone can't do it 24/7, but a hell of a lot more people could do it than now. 1 million times this. I can do 90% of my job at home. Technically I don't know that I'm even allowed to (no one else does and it was never mentioned), but I do it anyway every so often.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:1 million times this. I can do 90% of my job at home. Technically I don't know that I'm even allowed to (no one else does and it was never mentioned), but I do it anyway every so often. Sure, once our baby boomer bosses finally retire and take their "seat time = productivity" bullshit with them. gently caress, I get more done at home then at work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:I'm guessing most of the downtown businesses would be against it, because they'll presumably go out of business if people refuse to drive to downtown to patronize them something something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Am I the only one who likes a geographical separation between work and home? For me, home is my refuge. I don't want to taint it with the stress of my job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:1 million times this. I can do 90% of my job at home. Technically I don't know that I'm even allowed to (no one else does and it was never mentioned), but I do it anyway every so often. I do so wish I could. The guy doing desktop support before me was a fuckoff heroin addict, so my east coast boss wants me onsite, but I could do my job easily with one in-office day a week. SyHopeful posted:Am I the only one who likes a geographical separation between work and home? For me, home is my refuge. I don't want to taint it with the stress of my job. Yes. But if you have very specific hours, wouldn't they just be more easily done from your refuge?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
So are the new tolled HOV lanes on the 405 causing a traffic-pocalypse? I was driving south on 405 tonight and noticed a huuuge backup of cars going north. I wonder how bad it is in the morning with rush hour, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Am I the only one who likes a geographical separation between work and home? For me, home is my refuge. I don't want to taint it with the stress of my job. I totally get this. Personally, I have so much downtime at the office that just gets wasted. It's hard for me to work for 8 hours on a computer without taking a ton of tiny breaks. When I work from home, I use that downtime to do things like clean the house, make appointments, call my parents, work out, make lunch, water the plants, run down to the store, etc. Things I can't really do at the office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Am I the only one who likes a geographical separation between work and home? For me, home is my refuge. I don't want to taint it with the stress of my job. Definitely. My job can get really stressful and burnout is so common that while there are definitely times where I wish I could telecommute from home for office things (and they're doing a pilot project for my agency where that will be a possibility), I absolutely need the time away from work to decompress. It got so bad last year that I was checking in on things during my vacation, overseas, and had be told by my boss' boss to stop and enjoy my time off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Am I the only one who likes a geographical separation between work and home? For me, home is my refuge. I don't want to taint it with the stress of my job. I mostly worked from home when I was sick or when something really needed my attention. I was the only person in the office that knew how to do certain stuff, so was kind of on-call for that kind of thing even when on vacation. I was salaried, and the weeks I put in over 40 hours were pretty well-balanced against ones I did under 40, but I could see it becoming a problem in some situations. I liked being salaried, but if things spun to the point of essentially constant overtime then it would become a pretty raw deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Supporting other, denser modes more means you can potentially get more people in, not fewer. I mean you don't want to price the fee such that the roads become a ghost town, of course. Drunk Tomato posted:Although this sounds feasible, it is not a thing that actually happens; pedestrians and bicyclists walking by a store contribute way, way way more to the wealth of the business than car traffic could ever hope to. So if you prioritize pedestrians in an area, businesses will do better. I know that, and I'm 100% pro-congestion charge, but I doubt it would be a super-easy political sell even in the city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
foobardog posted:So something like the 405 lanes, but everywhere and more widespread. This poo poo hurts the poor because they can't afford those charges, but that is the last thing people who live downtown ever think about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
I'm intrigued in the idea for the long-term benefits, but i'm pretty sure it will wreck all sorts of unintended havoc like driving up housing prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Mrit posted:This poo poo hurts the poor because they can't afford those charges, but that is the last thing people who live downtown ever think about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Isn't part of the new 405 HOV lanes project supposed to speed up bus service there or something? In theory, yes. In reality, the people who can afford the tolls will win.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Am I the only one who likes a geographical separation between work and home? For me, home is my refuge. I don't want to taint it with the stress of my job. This is a known issue, yes. It's also incredibly hard to work at home for most people unless they have a dedicated room for it (i.e., you're not coding at the kitchen table).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:I totally get this. Personally, I have so much downtime at the office that just gets wasted. It's hard for me to work for 8 hours on a computer without taking a ton of tiny breaks. When I work from home, I use that downtime to do things like clean the house, make appointments, call my parents, work out, make lunch, water the plants, run down to the store, etc. Things I can't really do at the office. Also, it's really nice to not have to spend the time commuting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It actually helps the poor on average in the long run because it leads to better transit, and transit is cheaper than operating your own car everywhere. Isn't part of the new 405 HOV lanes project supposed to speed up bus service there or something? How do HOT lanes and congestion charges lead to better transit? I mean in the real world where people vote against any kind of spending and the nimbys block any expansion of mass transit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Yes. But if you have very specific hours, wouldn't they just be more easily done from your refuge? Totally, and I know for many people it's a much more appealing option than spending an hour or more every day just getting to work. Tulalip Tulips posted:Definitely. My job can get really stressful and burnout is so common that while there are definitely times where I wish I could telecommute from home for office things (and they're doing a pilot project for my agency where that will be a possibility), I absolutely need the time away from work to decompress. It got so bad last year that I was checking in on things during my vacation, overseas, and had be told by my boss' boss to stop and enjoy my time off. I'm approaching burnout too. My job involves traveling to multiple job sites every day so I I easily burn 2-3 hours driving, and I do often end up doing work from home anyway because driving home from most of the job sites can save me 45 minutes to an hour and a half of driving. I still hate doing it, but I hate sitting in rush hour traffic more. Doesn't help that I have a whopping week and a half of PTO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:How do HOT lanes and congestion charges lead to better transit? I mean in the real world where people vote against any kind of spending and the nimbys block any expansion of mass transit. In theory, the evil suburbanites have a flash of insight, realize that transit expansion will solve all their problems, and we all live happily ever after. In practice, we put even more load on a transit system that is currently operating well above capacity at peak commute times, take bets on just how early the suburban park-and-rides will fill up, and watch the state legislature pander to their constituents by stripping funding from "arrogant Seattle." That charge wouldn't even be too far out of line. Congestion charges work when you want people to go around a specific area, and they have alternatives. For instance, on congested city surface streets, people can take major roads surrounding the congestion zone, or take London's world-class public transit system. But, we don't have a London-style issue with congested surface streets and lots of alternatives to driving straight through the congestion zone for many drivers. We have surface streets that are actually pretty clear, and really bad highways. Congestion charges on the surface streets alone wouldn't do much. I guess Porsches and Ferraris could have a clear path for stoplight drag races in downtown Bellevue. Putting a congestion charge on the interstates, though, would just be creating a toll road. First of all, cities can't do that by themselves. Second, even if you found a way to do it legally somehow, it won't really incentivize transit all that much. The pieces of our mass transit system bringing people from suburban homes to city-center jobs are already at capacity or overloaded on weekday mornings. The "congestion charge" alone won't be enough to pay for the massive expansions of transit service we desperately need, just like it wouldn't be enough to build an entire new roadway. People aren't going to move because of the toll, and even if they wanted to, Seattle property values are at a point where it's not realistic for many people. So, they'll sigh, not change their behavior, grumble, pay the tolls, and vote for the guy who promises to gently caress over arrogant Seattle the most.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:How do HOT lanes and congestion charges lead to better transit? I mean in the real world where people vote against any kind of spending and the nimbys block any expansion of mass transit. Well they invest money creating a new second lane that is only usable by those who are willing to pay for it! After we pay for the new lane that only some people get to use, we will use some of that revenue to enforce the rules of that lane. And then we wont' get any more lanes! See Highway 167 for how this has been done for years and never made enough money to pay to expand the freeway--it only pays to cover the extra police enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It actually helps the poor on average in the long run because it leads to better transit, and transit is cheaper than operating your own car everywhere. This only works if you have alternative methods of commuting, buses take longer than a personal car or car pooling. I live in north Seattle and have the option to drive 15 to 20 minutes to work or take a bus that turns my commute into 45 minutes to an hour. I'm lucky since I only have one bus to catch, other friends have to take 2 or 3 buses and they have hour plus commutes, and that's within Seattle city limits. When we have a viable train system I'm all for congestion charges and tolls and whatever other garbage people want, I just don't want to be forced to waste 2 hours of my day because people don't like to sit in traffic for 30 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:Well they invest money creating a new second lane that is only usable by those who are willing to pay for it! After we pay for the new lane that only some people get to use, we will use some of that revenue to enforce the rules of that lane. Adding GP lanes to freeways to try to ease congestion is completely the wrong move.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Adding a lane for people who want to pay a toll is not either. gently caress it make it a bus and 3+ carpool only lane, no passes, no cameras, no extra WSP patrols, no bullshit. Up to three quarters of the revenue collected goes to enforcement of the lanes. OBAMNA PHONE fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:Adding a lane for people who want to pay a toll is not either. Are you including the offset of how much revenue enforcement generates?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:How do HOT lanes and congestion charges lead to better transit? I mean in the real world where people vote against any kind of spending and the nimbys block any expansion of mass transit. 2. The money from the congestion charge/HOT lane fees can help fund said transit. 3. Relieving congestion in the inner city/on freeway HOT lanes means buses can run faster. 4. More people switching from single occupancy cars to transit means you can run transit routes with higher frequency. quote:We have surface streets that are actually pretty clear, and really bad highways. Congestion charges on the surface streets alone wouldn't do much. A congestion charge isn't a perfect solution, but using one seems better than the status quo overall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Metaquestion: is TrafficChat really a topic that people think is that important and interesting to talk about, or is it more that it is something that we can actually say something new about? There is not much chance that we will get an easy plan to end income inequality, but we might get a light rail line to Maple Valley or a street car down Cesar Chavez Blvd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
I think there is definitely an element of bikeshedding about traffic because it's something everyone deals with and has opinions on. It's probably the most prominent interaction with local government people who aren't business owners have. That said, it is pretty important because workers need to get to work, emergency vehicles need to get around, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Metaquestion: is TrafficChat really a topic that people think is that important and interesting to talk about, or is it more that it is something that we can actually say something new about? I think it's something that has a certain commonality across the region, and is more tangible and addressable than larger and more abstract issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 21:27
|
|